explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2318: Dynamic Entropy

2020-06-11T07:23:49Z

Ncm: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2318
| date = June 11, 2020
| title = Dynamic Entropy
| image = dynamic_entropy.png
| titletext = Despite years of effort by my physics professors to normalize it, deep down I remain convinced that 'dynamical' is not really a word.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a PHYSICS PROFESSOR. Explain what "pejorative sense" means. Should briefly explain dynamic programming, information theory, and entropy, and define the word “dynamical”. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This is another one of [[Randall|Randall's]] [[:Category:Tips|Tips]], this time a Science Tip. This time it is a bit special since it came less than three weeks after another Science Tip: [[2311: Confidence Interval]]. This thus became the first time a type of tip, that was not a [[:Category:Protip|Protip]], has been used more than once, and it was even for two "tips comics" in a row.

This Science Tip suggests, that if you have a cool new concept, you should call it ''Dynamic entropy'', hence the title.

[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dynamic/ Merriam-Webster's Dictionary] defines dynamic as "marked by usually continuous and productive activity or change" as well as "of or relating to physical force or energy," among other definitions. [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entropy/ Additionally, it] defines entropy as "the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system." So while clearly these two words do mean things, the comic provides two quotes from famous scientists saying that "it's impossible to use the word 'dynamic' in a pejorative sense", and "no one knows what entropy really is". The result is a phrase that can mean whatever the concept's originator wishes it to mean, and cannot possibly be heard in a negative light (as has happened with e.g. "{{w|cold fusion}}").

Even though the caption implies that "dynamic entropy" would be available as a new name, it has actually been used in physics<ref>Allegrini, P., Douglas, J. F., & Glotzer, S. C. (1999). Dynamic entropy as a measure of caging and persistent particle motion in supercooled liquids. Physical Review E, 60(5), 5714, doi: 10.1103/physreve.60.5714.</ref><ref>Green, J. R., Costa, A. B., Grzybowski, B. A., & Szleifer, I. (2013). Relationship between dynamical entropy and energy dissipation far from thermodynamic equilibrium. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(41), 16339-16343.</ref>, probability<ref>Asadi, M., Ebrahimi, N., Hamedani, G., & Soofi, E. (2004). Maximum Dynamic Entropy Models. Journal of Applied Probability, 41(2), 379-390. Retrieved June 11, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/3216023</ref>, and computer science<ref>S. Satpathy et al., "An All-Digital Unified Static/Dynamic Entropy Generator Featuring Self-Calibrating Hierarchical Von Neumann Extraction for Secure Privacy-Preserving Mutual Authentication in IoT Mote Platforms," 2018 IEEE Symposium on VLSI Circuits, Honolulu, HI, 2018, pp. 169-170, doi: 10.1109/VLSIC.2018.8502369.</ref>

In the title text Randall mentions, that even though his physics professors has continued to use the word "dynamical", "trying to normalize it" by repetitive usage, he remains convinced that it is not really a word. I.e. it would just be something they use, like in this comic, where putting "Dynamic" in front of another word can give it a positive meaning.

The term "dynamical" appears in "dynamical friction", a process by which, for example, a massive body loses momentum by passing other bodies and accelerating them toward its path. Thus, the black hole at the center of a galaxy is slowed as it passes through another galaxy, even if its momentum is very large relative to the mass of all the bodies it passes, and it never gets very close to any of them. The phenomenon also affects charged particles.

==Transcript==
:[One panel only with text and a few lines and arrows. There are two columns each with a heading. Beneath each heading is a quote written on four lines. Below the quote, in grey font, and indented, starting with a hyphen, with the text aligned to the right of this are five lines of text. This explains who the quote belongs too and where it was stated (in brackets at the end). From the bottom of each of these two gray text paragraphs gray curved arrows goes down to two gray lines. Below each of these two lines are one large word per line. They are again in black text.]
:<big>Dynamic</big>
:"It's impossible to use the word 'dynamic' in the pejorative sense... Thus, I thought 'Dynamic Programming' was a good name."
::- Richard Bellman, explaining how he picked a name for his math research to try to protect it from criticism (''Eye of the Hurricane'', 1984)

:<big>Entropy</big>
:"You should call it 'Entropy'... No one knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage."
::- John von Neumann, to Claude Shannon, on why he should borrow the physics term in information theory (as told to Myron Tribus)

:::<big><big>'''''Dynamic Entropy'''''</big></big>

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Science Tip: If you have a cool concept you need a name for, try "Dynamic Entropy."

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Tips]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Physics]]

2318: Dynamic Entropy

2020-06-11T06:06:48Z

Ncm: /* Explanation */ Dynamical

{{comic
| number = 2318
| date = June 11, 2020
| title = Dynamic Entropy
| image = dynamic_entropy.png
| titletext = Despite years of effort by my physics professors to normalize it, deep down I remain convinced that 'dynamical' is not really a word.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a PHYSICS PROFESSOR. Should briefly explain dynamic programming, information theory, and entropy, and define the word “dynamical”. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic strip is a [[:Category:Tips|"science tip"]], suggesting that a cool concept should be called "dynamic entropy." [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dynamic/ Merriam-Webster's Dictionary] defines dynamic as "marked by usually continuous and productive activity or change" as well as "of or relating to physical force or energy," among other definitions. [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entropy/ Additionally, it] defines entropy as "the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system." So while clearly these two words do mean things, the comic provides two quotes from famous scientists saying that "it's impossible to use the word 'dynamic' in a pejorative sense", and "no one knows what entropy really is". The result is a phrase that can mean whatever the concept's originator wishes it to mean, and cannot possibly be heard in a negative light (as has happened with e.g. "{{w|cold fusion}}").

The term "dynamical" appears in "dynamical friction", a process by which, for example, a massive body loses momentum by passing other bodies and accelerating them toward its path. Thus, the black hole at the center of a galaxy is slowed as it passes through another galaxy, even if its momentum is very large relative to the mass of all the bodies it passes, and it never gets very close to any of them.

Even though the caption implies that "dynamic entropy" would be available as a new name, it has actually been used in physics<ref>Allegrini, P., Douglas, J. F., & Glotzer, S. C. (1999). Dynamic entropy as a measure of caging and persistent particle motion in supercooled liquids. Physical Review E, 60(5), 5714, doi: 10.1103/physreve.60.5714.</ref><ref>Green, J. R., Costa, A. B., Grzybowski, B. A., & Szleifer, I. (2013). Relationship between dynamical entropy and energy dissipation far from thermodynamic equilibrium. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(41), 16339-16343.</ref>, probability<ref>Asadi, M., Ebrahimi, N., Hamedani, G., & Soofi, E. (2004). Maximum Dynamic Entropy Models. Journal of Applied Probability, 41(2), 379-390. Retrieved June 11, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/3216023</ref>, and computer science<ref>S. Satpathy et al., "An All-Digital Unified Static/Dynamic Entropy Generator Featuring Self-Calibrating Hierarchical Von Neumann Extraction for Secure Privacy-Preserving Mutual Authentication in IoT Mote Platforms," 2018 IEEE Symposium on VLSI Circuits, Honolulu, HI, 2018, pp. 169-170, doi: 10.1109/VLSIC.2018.8502369.</ref>

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

<big>Dynamic</big>

"It's impossible to use the word 'dynamic' in the pejorative sense...thus, I thought 'dynamic programming' was a good name."
:- Richard Bellman, explaining how he picked a name for his math research to try to protect it from criticism (''Eye of the Hurricane'', 1984)

<big>Entropy</big>

"You should call it 'Entropy'...no one knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage."
:- John von Neumann, to Claude Shannon, on why he should borrow the physics term in information theory (as told to Myron Tribus)

[Two arrows leading from the definitions above to:]

<big><big><big>'''''DYNAMIC ENTROPY'''''</big></big></big>

[Caption below box]
Science Tip: If you have a cool concept you need a name for, try "Dynamic Entropy."

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Tips]]

2308: Mount St. Helens

2020-05-20T06:23:09Z

Ncm: /* Explanation */ 1.4 billion cubic yards. So, yes, millions.

{{comic
| number = 2308
| date = May 18, 2020
| title = Mount St. Helens
| image = mount_st_helens.png
| titletext = It's a good mountain but it really peaked in the 80s.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by AN OVERBLOWN MOUNTAIN. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic marks the 40 year anniversary of the {{w|1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens|May 18, 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens}} that killed 57 people. It was a Monday so a normal release day could be used to mark this event.

It shows a graph of the height of the mountains in the {{w|Washington (state)|state of Washington}} as a function of time over the last 100 years. The only mountain to change its height significantly over this time period is {{w|Mount St. Helens}}, which the comic is named after. It is also the only black line as all other (30?) lines are gray.

Mount St. Helens is a {{w|volcano}} that famously and explosively erupted in 1980. Millions of tons of earth were blasted from one face of the mountain all over the surrounding countryside. After it was over, the peak of Mount St. Helens was no longer the 5th highest in the {{w|Washington (state)|state of Washington}}, having lost approximately 1,300 feet (400 m) in height (from 9,677 ft (2,950 m) pre-explosion to 8,363 ft (2,549 m) post-explosion).

Currently, the 5 highest {{w|List of mountain peaks of Washington (state)|mountain peaks in Washington State}} are {{w|Mount Rainier}} (at 14,411 ft or 4,392 m), {{w|Mount Adams (Washington)|Mount Adams}}, {{w|Mount Baker}}, {{w|Glacier Peak}}, and {{w|Bonanza Peak (Washington)|Bonanza Peak}}. As shown in the comic, Mount St. Helens was the 5th highest, but now has fallen to #52 (using a {{w|topographic prominence}} cut-off of 300 m (984 feet)). Only mountains above 8,000 feet (2,438 m) are included, with the graph topping at 15,000 feet (4,572 m), 600 feet (182 m) above the highest mountain. There are 92 peaks above 8000 feet in the state, so not all are included and the lines are not really distinct below 9000 feet. Seems like there are less than 30 lines drawn. Of course it says Mountains not Mountain peaks, but there are only four mountain ranges in Washington with peaks above 8000, so he must mean peaks!

Technically, the other mountains may be fluctuating in height as well, due to erosion or the movement of Earth's tectonic plates, but this phenomenon should not be visible on the time-scale and vertical resolution that Randall has plotted.  Precision GPS measurements of various peaks in Washington have only been available since 2010, and it's likely that the primarily volcanic mountains of Washington experience significant but comparatively slight variations throughout the year due to snowfall, melt, or the pressure of swelling magma inside volcanic cores. These changes go largely unmeasured, while the mountains continue to appear equally physically unchanging and imposing both in person and from a distance.
Source: [https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/how-tall-is-rainier-really/ Seattle Times]. So while the comic does appear to show some slight fluctuations in height for mountains, that is more likely a side-effect of the comic's free-hand drawing style than an accurate reflection of any real fluctuations.

The title text is a play on the term “peak” meaning both the highest point of a mountain and also the optimal, most famous or most impressive stage of a trend; for instance: "The band Rolling Stones really peaked in the 80s."

==Transcript==
:[Caption above graph:]
:Heights of mountains in Washington State
:Over time

:[A graph is shown with close to 30 horizontal gray lines which seem not to change much, if any, as they go from left to right. Only the top 6 gray lines are distinctly separated from others. The top line is way above the second line which again is far above the next two that are close together. Two more close together is somewhat further down, and just below them the rest of the lines follow in close proximity down to the bottom of the graph. A single black line is also shown. It begins as the fifth highest line, just above the two last mentioned above. It, like all other lines, goes horizontally, but only three fifths of the way across the graph – then it immediately drops down well below most of the other lines (at 1980) and levels off, continuing on its horizontal path. There is a caption above the graph, and both Y-axis and X-axis has labels. For the Y-axis there is a tick for every label, for the X-axis only every 2nd tick has a label. A unit is given on the top label on the Y-axis.]

:[X-axis:]
:1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020

:[Y-axis:]
:15,000
::feet
:14,000
:13,000
:12,000
:11,000
:10,000
:9,000
:8,000

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Line graphs]]
[[Category:Timelines]]
[[Category:Geology]]
[[Category:Volcanoes]]

2308: Mount St. Helens

2020-05-19T21:01:37Z

Ncm: /* Explanation */ not so much sliding

{{comic
| number = 2308
| date = May 18, 2020
| title = Mount St. Helens
| image = mount_st_helens.png
| titletext = It's a good mountain but it really peaked in the 80s.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by AN OVERBLOWN MOUNTAIN. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic marks the 40 year anniversary of the {{w|1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens|May 18, 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens}} that killed 57 people. It was a Monday so a normal release day could be used to mark this event.

It shows a graph of the height of the mountains in the {{w|Washington (state)|state of Washington}} as a function of time over the last 100 years. The only mountain to change its height significantly over this time period is {{w|Mount St. Helens}}, which the comic is named after. It is also the only black line as all other (30?) lines are gray.

Mount St. Helens is a {{w|volcano}} that famously and explosively erupted in 1980. Thousands (millions?) of tons of earth were blasted from one face of the mountain all over the surrounding countryside. After it was over, the peak of Mount St. Helens was no longer the 5th highest in the {{w|Washington (state)|state of Washington}}, having lost approximately 1,300 feet (400 m) in height (from 9,677 ft (2,950 m) pre-explosion to 8,363 ft (2,549 m) post-explosion).

Currently, the 5 highest {{w|List of mountain peaks of Washington (state)|mountain peaks in Washington State}} are {{w|Mount Rainier}} (at 14,411 ft or 4,392 m), {{w|Mount Adams (Washington)|Mount Adams}}, {{w|Mount Baker}}, {{w|Glacier Peak}}, and {{w|Bonanza Peak (Washington)|Bonanza Peak}}. As shown in the comic, Mount St. Helens was the 5th highest, but now has fallen to #52 (using a {{w|topographic prominence}} cut-off of 300 m (984 feet)). Only mountains above 8,000 feet (2,438 m) are included, with the graph topping at 15,000 feet (4,572 m), 600 feet (182 m) above the highest mountain. There are 92 peaks above 8000 feet in the state, so not all are included and the lines are not really distinct below 9000 feet. Seems like there are less than 30 lines drawn. Of course it says Mountains not Mountain peaks, but there are only four mountain ranges in Washington with peaks above 8000, so he must mean peaks!

Technically, the other mountains may be fluctuating in height as well, due to erosion or the movement of Earth's tectonic plates, but this phenomenon should not be visible on the time-scale and vertical resolution that Randall has plotted.  Precision GPS measurements of various peaks in Washington have only been available since 2010, and it's likely that the primarily volcanic mountains of Washington experience significant but comparatively slight variations throughout the year due to snowfall, melt, or the pressure of swelling magma inside volcanic cores. These changes go largely unmeasured, while the mountains continue to appear equally physically unchanging and imposing both in person and from a distance.
Source: [https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/how-tall-is-rainier-really/ Seattle Times]. So while the comic does appear to show some slight fluctuations in height for mountains, that is more likely a side-effect of the comic's free-hand drawing style than an accurate reflection of any real fluctuations.

The title text is a play on the term “peak” meaning both the highest point of a mountain and also the optimal, most famous or most impressive stage of a trend. for instance: "The band Rolling Stones really peaked in the 80s."

==Transcript==
:[A graph is shows with close to 30 horizontal gray lines which seem not to change much, if any, as they go from left to right. Only the top 6 gray lines are distinctly separated from others. The top line is way above the second line which again is far above the next two that are close together. Two more close together is somewhat further down, and just below them the rest of the lines follow in close proximity down to the bottom of the graph. A single black line is also shown. It begins as the fifth highest line, just above the two last mentioned above. It is as all other lines going horizontally, but only for three fifth of the way across the graph, then it immediately drops down well below most of the other lines (at 1980) and levels off, continuing on its horizontal path. There is a caption above the graph, and both Y-axis and X-axis has labels. For the Y-axis there is a tick for every label, for the X-axis only every 2nd tick has a label. A unit is given on the top label on the Y-axis.]

:[Caption above graph:]
:Heights of mountains in Washington State
:Over time

:[X-axis:]
:1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020

:[Y-axis:]
:15,000
::feet
:14,000
:13,000
:12,000
:11,000
:10,000
:9,000
:8,000

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Line graphs]]
[[Category:Timelines]]
[[Category:Geology]]
[[Category:Volcanoes]]

2308: Mount St. Helens

2020-05-19T20:59:22Z

Ncm: /* Explanation */ number

{{comic
| number = 2308
| date = May 18, 2020
| title = Mount St. Helens
| image = mount_st_helens.png
| titletext = It's a good mountain but it really peaked in the 80s.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by AN OVERBLOWN MOUNTAIN. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic marks the 40 year anniversary of the {{w|1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens|May 18, 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens}} that killed 57 people. It was a Monday so a normal release day could be used to mark this event.

It shows a graph of the height of the mountains in the {{w|Washington (state)|state of Washington}} as a function of time over the last 100 years. The only mountain to change its height significantly over this time period is {{w|Mount St. Helens}}, which the comic is named after. It is also the only black line as all other (30?) lines are gray.

Mount St. Helens is a {{w|volcano}} that famously and explosively erupted in 1980. Thousands (millions?) of tons of earth were thrown from one face of the mountain and slid into the surrounding countryside. After it was over, the peak of Mount St. Helens was no longer the 5th highest in the {{w|Washington (state)|state of Washington}}, having lost approximately 1,300 feet (400 m) in height (from 9,677 ft (2,950 m) pre-explosion to 8,363 ft (2,549 m) post-explosion).

Currently, the 5 highest {{w|List of mountain peaks of Washington (state)|mountain peaks in Washington State}} are {{w|Mount Rainier}} (at 14,411 ft or 4,392 m), {{w|Mount Adams (Washington)|Mount Adams}}, {{w|Mount Baker}}, {{w|Glacier Peak}}, and {{w|Bonanza Peak (Washington)|Bonanza Peak}}. As shown in the comic, Mount St. Helens was the 5th highest, but now has fallen to #52 (using a {{w|topographic prominence}} cut-off of 300 m (984 feet)). Only mountains above 8,000 feet (2,438 m) are included, with the graph topping at 15,000 feet (4,572 m), 600 feet (182 m) above the highest mountain. There are 92 peaks above 8000 feet in the state, so not all are included and the lines are not really distinct below 9000 feet. Seems like there are less than 30 lines drawn. Of course it says Mountains not Mountain peaks, but there are only four mountain ranges in Washington with peaks above 8000, so he must mean peaks!

Technically, the other mountains may be fluctuating in height as well, due to erosion or the movement of Earth's tectonic plates, but this phenomenon should not be visible on the time-scale and vertical resolution that Randall has plotted.  Precision GPS measurements of various peaks in Washington have only been available since 2010, and it's likely that the primarily volcanic mountains of Washington experience significant but comparatively slight variations throughout the year due to snowfall, melt, or the pressure of swelling magma inside volcanic cores. These changes go largely unmeasured, while the mountains continue to appear equally physically unchanging and imposing both in person and from a distance.
Source: [https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/how-tall-is-rainier-really/ Seattle Times]. So while the comic does appear to show some slight fluctuations in height for mountains, that is more likely a side-effect of the comic's free-hand drawing style than an accurate reflection of any real fluctuations.

The title text is a play on the term “peak” meaning both the highest point of a mountain and also the optimal, most famous or most impressive stage of a trend. for instance: "The band Rolling Stones really peaked in the 80s."

==Transcript==
:[A graph is shows with close to 30 horizontal gray lines which seem not to change much, if any, as they go from left to right. Only the top 6 gray lines are distinctly separated from others. The top line is way above the second line which again is far above the next two that are close together. Two more close together is somewhat further down, and just below them the rest of the lines follow in close proximity down to the bottom of the graph. A single black line is also shown. It begins as the fifth highest line, just above the two last mentioned above. It is as all other lines going horizontally, but only for three fifth of the way across the graph, then it immediately drops down well below most of the other lines (at 1980) and levels off, continuing on its horizontal path. There is a caption above the graph, and both Y-axis and X-axis has labels. For the Y-axis there is a tick for every label, for the X-axis only every 2nd tick has a label. A unit is given on the top label on the Y-axis.]

:[Caption above graph:]
:Heights of mountains in Washington State
:Over time

:[X-axis:]
:1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020

:[Y-axis:]
:15,000
::feet
:14,000
:13,000
:12,000
:11,000
:10,000
:9,000
:8,000

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Line graphs]]
[[Category:Timelines]]
[[Category:Geology]]
[[Category:Volcanoes]]

2295: Garbage Math

2020-04-19T09:40:15Z

Ncm: cite IEEE-754

{{comic
| number = 2295
| date = April 17, 2020
| title = Garbage Math
| image = garbage_math.png
| titletext = 'Garbage In, Garbage Out' should not be taken to imply any sort of conservation law limiting the amount of garbage produced.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a ZILOG Z80. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic explains the "{{w|garbage in, garbage out}}" concept using arithmetical expressions. Just like the comic says, if you get garbage in any part of your workflow, you get garbage as a result. Except when you multiply by zero. That one always fixes everything.

Some of these rules correspond to the rules of {{w|floating point arithmetic}}, while others may be inspired by the rules of {{w|Propagation_of_uncertainty#Example_formulae| propagation of uncertainty}} where a "garbage" number would correspond to an estimate with a high degree of uncertainty, and the uncertainty of the result of arithmetic operations will tend to be dominated by the term with the highest uncertainty. The rule about N pieces of independent garbage reflects the {{w|central limit theorem}} and how it predicts that the uncertainty (or {{w|standard error}}) of an estimate will be reduced when independent estimates are averaged. The comic oddly omits raising garbage to the 0th power, or 1 to the garbageth power, which (by {{w|IEEE-754}}) transforms even {{w|NaN}}, the platonic ideal of garbage, to exactly 1.

This comic is about the propagation of errors in numerical analysis and statistics, but described in much more colloquial terms. Numbers with low precision are termed "garbage" and numbers with high precision are labeled "precise".

This comic is not related to the {{w|2019–20 coronavirus outbreak|2020 pandemic}} of the {{w|coronavirus}} {{w|SARS-CoV-2}}, which causes {{w|COVID-19}}, breaking the streak of comics preceding this on [[:Category:COVID-19|topics relating to COVID-19]], after (rather appropriately) 19 comics (not counting the [[2288: Collector's Edition|April Fools' comic]]).

{| class="wikitable"
!Formula
!Statistical Expression
!Explanation
|-
|Precise number + Precise number = Slightly less precise number
|<math>\mathop\sigma(X+Y)=\sqrt{(\mathop\sigma(X))^2+(\mathop\sigma(Y))^2}</math>
|{{Nowrap|If we know absolute error bars, then adding two precise numbers will}} at worst add the sizes of the two error bars. For example, if our precise numbers are 1 (±10-6) and 1 (±10-6), then our sum is 2 (±2·10-6). It is possible to lose a lot of relative precision, if the resultant sum is close to zero as a result of adding a number and then close to its inverse. This phenomenon is known as catastrophic cancellation. Therefore, it is likely that all numbers referred here are positive numbers, which does not exhibit this phenomenon.
|-
|Precise number × Precise number = Slightly less precise number
|<math>\mathop\sigma(X\times Y)=\sqrt{(\mathop\sigma(X)\times Y)^2+(\mathop\sigma(Y)\times X)^2}</math>
|Here, instead of absolute error, relative error will be added. For example, if our precise numbers are 1 (±10-6) and 1 (±10-6), then our product is 1 (±2·10-6).
|-
|Precise number + Garbage = Garbage
|<math>\mathop\sigma(X+Y)=\sqrt{(\mathop\sigma(X))^2+(\mathop\sigma(Y))^2}</math>
|If one of the numbers has a high absolute error, and the numbers being added are of comparable size, then this error will be propagated to the sum.
|-
|Precise number × Garbage = Garbage
|<math>\mathop\sigma(X\times Y)=\sqrt{(\mathop\sigma(X)\times Y)^2+(\mathop\sigma(Y)\times X)^2}</math>
|Likewise, if one of the numbers has a high relative error, then this error will be propagated to the product. Here, this is independent of the sizes of the numbers.
|-
|<math>\sqrt{\text{Garbage}} = \text{Less bad garbage}</math>
|<math>\mathop\sigma(\sqrt X)=\frac{\mathop\sigma(X)}{2\times\sqrt X} </math>
| When the square root of a number is computed, its relative error will be halved. Depending on the application, this might not be all that much ''better'', but it's at least ''less bad''.
|-
|Garbage2 = Worse garbage
|<math>\mathop\sigma(X^2)=2\times X\times\mathop\sigma(X)</math>
|Likewise, when a number is squared, its relative error will be doubled. This is a corollary to multiplication adding relative errors.
|-
|<math>\frac{1}{N}\sum(\text{N pieces of statistically independent garbage}) = \text{Better garbage}</math>
|
|By aggregating many pieces of statistically independent observations (for instance, surveying many individuals), it is possible to reduce relative error. This is the basis of statistical sampling and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem central limit theorem].
|-
|Precise numberGarbage = Much worse garbage
|<math>\mathop\sigma(b^X)=b^{2\times X}\times\mathop{\mathrm{ln}}b\times\sigma(X)</math>
|The exponent is very sensitive to changes, which may also magnify the effect based on the magnitude of the precise number.
|-
|Garbage – Garbage = Much worse garbage
|<math>\mathop\sigma(X-Y)=\sqrt{(\mathop\sigma(X))^2+(\mathop\sigma(Y))^2}</math>
|This line involves catastrophic cancellation. If both pieces of garbage are about the same (e.g. if their error bars overlap), then it is possible that the answer is positive, zero, or negative.
|-
|<math>\frac{\text{Precise number}}{\text{Garbage}-\text{Garbage}}</math> = Much worse garbage, possible division by zero
|<math>\mathop\sigma(\frac{a}{X-Y})=|\frac a{X-Y}|\times\sqrt{(\mathop\sigma(X))^2+(\mathop\sigma(Y))^2}</math>
|Indeed, as with above, if error bars overlap then we might end up dividing by zero.
|-
|Garbage × 0 = Precise number
|<math>\mathop\sigma(0)=0</math>
|Multiplying anything by 0 results in 0, an extremely precise number in the sense that it has no error whatsoever since we supply the 0 ourselves. This is equivalent to discarding garbage data from a statistical analysis.
|}

The title text refers to the computer science maxim of "garbage in, garbage out," which states that when it comes to computer code, supplying incorrect initial data will produce incorrect results, even if the code itself accurately does what it is supposed to do. As we can see above, however, when plugging data into mathematical formulas, this can possibly magnify the error of our input data, though there are ways to reduce this error (such as aggregating data). Therefore, the quantity of garbage is not necessarily conserved.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[A series of mathematical equations are written from top to bottom]

Precise number + Precise number = Slightly less precise number

Precise number × Precise number = Slightly less precise number

Precise number + Garbage = Garbage

Precise number × Garbage = Garbage

√Garbage = Less bad garbage

1/N Σ (N pieces of statistically independent garbage) = Better garbage

(Precise number)Garbage = Much worse garbage

Garbage – Garbage = Much worse garbage

Precise number / ( Garbage – Garbage ) = Much worse garbage, possible division by zero

Garbage × 0 = Precise number

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Math]]

2295: Garbage Math

2020-04-18T04:38:59Z

Ncm: /* Explanation */ nan^0=1!

{{comic
| number = 2295
| date = April 17, 2020
| title = Garbage Math
| image = garbage_math.png
| titletext = 'Garbage In, Garbage Out' should not be taken to imply any sort of conservation law limiting the amount of garbage produced.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a ZILOG Z80. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic explains the "{{w|garbage in, garbage out}}" concept using arithmetical expressions. Just like the comic says, if you get garbage in any part of your workflow, you get garbage as a result.

Some of these rules correspond to the rules of {{w|floating point arithmetic}}, while others may be inspired by the rules of {{w|Propagation_of_uncertainty#Example_formulae| propagation of uncertainty}} where a "garbage" number would correspond to an estimate with a high degree of uncertainty, and the uncertainty of the result of arithmetic operations will tend to be dominated by the term with the highest uncertainty. The rule about N pieces of independent garbage reflects the {{w|central limit theorem}} and how it predicts that the uncertainty (or {{w|standard error}}) of an estimate will be reduced when independent estimates are averaged. The comic oddly omits raising garbage to the 0th power, which transforms even NaN, the platonic ideal of garbage, to exactly 1.

This comic is not related to the {{w|2019–20 coronavirus outbreak|2020 pandemic}} of the {{w|coronavirus}} {{w|SARS-CoV-2}}, which causes {{w|COVID-19}}, breaking the streak of comics preceding this on [[:Category:COVID-19|topics relating to COVID-19]], after (rather appropriately) 19 comics (not counting the [[2288: Collector's Edition|April Fools' comic]]).

This comic is about the propagation of errors in numerical analysis and statistics, but described in much more colloquial terms. Numbers with low precision are termed "garbage" and numbers with high precision are labeled "precise".

{| class="wikitable"
!Formula
!Explanation
|-
|Precise number + Precise number = Slightly less precise number
|If we know absolute error bars, then adding two precise numbers will at worst add the sizes of the two error bars. For example, if our precise numbers are 1 (±10-6) and 1 (±10-6), then our sum is 2 (±2·10-6). It is possible to lose a lot of relative precision, if the resultant sum is close to zero as a result of adding a number and then close to its inverse. This phenomenon is known as catastrophic cancellation. Therefore, it is likely that all numbers referred here are positive numbers, which does not exhibit this phenomenon.
|-
|Precise number × Precise number = Slightly less precise number
|Here, instead of absolute error, relative error will be added. For example, if our precise numbers are 1 (±10-6) and 1 (±10-6), then our product is 1 (±2·10-6).
|-
|Precise number + Garbage = Garbage
|If one of the numbers has a high absolute error, and the numbers being added are of comparable size, then this error will be propagated to the sum.
|-
|Precise number × Garbage = Garbage
|Likewise, if one of the numbers has a high relative error, then this error will be propagated to the product. Here, this is independent of the sizes of the numbers.
|-
|<math>\sqrt{\text{Garbage}} = \text{Less bad garbage}</math>
| When the square root of a number is computed, its relative error will be halved. Depending on the application, this might not be all that much ''better'', but it's at least ''less bad''.
|-
|Garbage2 = Worse garbage
|Likewise, when a number is squared, its relative error will be doubled. This is a corollary to multiplication adding relative errors.
|-
|<math>\frac{1}{N}\sum(\text{N pieces of statistically independent garbage}) = \text{Better garbage}</math>
|By aggregating many pieces of statistically independent observations (for instance, surveying many individuals), it is possible to reduce relative error. This is the basis of statistical sampling.
|-
|Precise numberGarbage = Much worse garbage
|The exponent is very sensitive to changes, which may also magnify the effect based on the magnitude of the precise number.
|-
|Garbage – Garbage = Much worse garbage
|This line involves catastrophic cancellation. If both pieces of garbage are about the same (e.g. if their error bars overlap), then it is possible that the answer is positive, zero, or negative.
|-
|<math>\frac{\text{Precise number}}{\text{Garbage}-\text{Garbage}}</math> = Much worse garbage, possible division by zero
|Indeed, as with above, if error bars overlap then we might end up dividing by zero.
|-
|Garbage × 0 = Precise number
|Multiplying anything by 0 results in 0, an extremely precise number in the sense that it has no error whatsoever since we supply the 0 ourselves. This is equivalent to discarding garbage data from a statistical analysis.
|}

The title text refers to the computer science maxim of "garbage in, garbage out," which states that when it comes to computer code, supplying incorrect initial data will produce incorrect results, even if the code itself accurately does what it is supposed to do. As we can see above, however, when plugging data into mathematical formulas, this can possibly magnify the error of our input data, though there are ways to reduce this error (such as aggregating data). Therefore, the quantity of garbage is not necessarily conserved.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[A series of mathematical equations are written from top to bottom]

Precise number + Precise number = Slightly less precise number

Precise number × Precise number = Slightly less precise number

Precise number + Garbage = Garbage

Precise number × Garbage = Garbage

√Garbage = Less bad garbage

1/N Σ (N pieces of statistically independent garbage) = Better garbage

(Precise number)Garbage = Much worse garbage

Garbage – Garbage = Much worse garbage

Precise number / ( Garbage – Garbage ) = Much worse garbage, possible division by zero

Garbage × 0 = Precise number

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Math]]

2155: Swimming

2019-05-28T04:59:10Z

Ncm: Not the bottom

{{comic
| number = 2155
| date = May 27, 2019
| title = Swimming
| before = [[#Explanation|↓ Skip to explanation ↓]]
| image = swimming.png
| titletext = "You don't know how high above you the sky goes, but you're not freaking out about that." "Well, NOW I am!"
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a CONTINENTAL SHELF. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic is about an irrational fear about the depth of water beneath oneself. Whenever you don't explicitly know how deep the water is, and cannot see the bottom, there is nothing preventing the sea/lake/riverbed from being exceptionally far away. This phenomenon is actually quite common with many bodies of water having a relatively shallow shelf extending a short ways out from land. These typically end with little to no warning, giving rise to the fear that is depicted here.

It is an '''irrational''' fear because if one is swimming, the depth of the water underneath is not important to safety. If one is wading, presumably one would feel the bottom drop away.

Here, [[Megan]] and [[Cueball]] are in in the ocean, with Cueball treading water and Megan standing on the seabed, with another girl in the water and another Cueball watching from the beach. Megan mentiones that she can still touch bottom, thus thinking it is safe. In front of her however the seabed drops off steeply, becoming nearly vertical. Fish and jellyfish are in the water below, while at the bottom of the frame, but not the sea floor, a small ledge holds an octopus and a beach umbrella.

===Related comics===
*In [[731: Desert Island]] a similar vision of not knowing what is beneath the surface is depicted.
*Randall provided the depths of various bodies of water without mentioning any specific fears in [[1040: Lakes and Oceans]].
*The title text may be a reference to [[1115: Sky]], where [[Megan]] similarly starts freaking out about the depth of the sky.
*[[what if%3F]] #103 covers what would happen if all the bodies of water vanished. It refers to the sharp drop-off of the continental shelf, and divides boats into two categories: those over the shelf that crash within a few seconds, and those past the shelf that take up to a minute to reach bottom.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:[The single panel comic is around 4-5 times higher than it is wide. Cueball is watching from the beach while Megan with another character is standing neck deep in water near an extreme drop off (continental shelf?) and another Cueball is swimming further. This part of the comic is at the very top, and the characters are drawn much smaller than usual.]

:Megan: It's OK, I can still touch bottom here.

:[As the tall image is scrolled down, there are some deep water fish, a jellyfish, and an octopus, a bottom ledge with a beach umbrella on it, and another drop off.]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:I love swimming, but occasionally I realize I don't know how deep the water under me is and it freaks me out.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Large drawings‏‎]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]

2142: Dangerous Fields

2019-04-29T19:15:33Z

Ncm: /* Fields */ astronomers and aliens, again.

{{comic
| number = 2142
| date = April 26, 2019
| title = Dangerous Fields
| image = dangerous_fields.png
| titletext = Eventually, every epidemiologist becomes another statistic, a dedication to record-keeping which their colleagues sincerely appreciate.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an INEXORABLE PROCESS. Percentages needed to be added (like [[1895: Worrying Scientist Interviews]]). Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This is a graph of fields of study, ordered by how likely one is to die because of something that that field studies, with mathematics being the least dangerous and gerontology being the most. Gerontology, the scientific study of old age, is shown as much more dangerous than the other fields, so it is far on the right side of the graph. The joke is in the distinction between the danger of studying the thing, and the overall death rate from the thing. Studying ageing doesn't put you at much more risk of ageing than the general population. However, studying volcanoes is likely to put you in dangerous environments.

===Fields===
*{{W|Mathematics}} is such a pure non-physical field that the probability of it being the direct cause of death is extremely low. The study of it might cause death through workplace disputes or absent-mindedly wandering in front of traffic while pondering (as in [[356: Nerd Sniping]]).

*{{W|Astronomy}}, the study of stars and space. Astronomy is slightly more dangerous than mathematics though, since it studies physical objects instead of abstract concepts. In addition to meteor or asteroid impacts, astronomical phenomena that might cause death include solar flares, nearby supernovae, distant magnetar quakes, a solar nova (the likelihood of which will increase over the next billion-odd years), perturbations in earth's orbit, increased or decreased solar radiation, and alien invasion. Given that the density of magnetars and potentially hostile alien civilizations in the stellar neighborhood is completely unknown, and not all past mass extinctions are explained, this one might be misplaced a bit. Although these are all rare events, just one could kill all living and potential future astronomers. That non-astronomers would also be affected seems poor consolation. While astronomers do not study aliens, as such—that would be exobiology—some have sought evidence of alien activity.

*{{W|Economics}} is the study of markets. Markets can kill you by depriving you of goods and services you need to survive. Goods can become unavailable (e.g., cartels, embargos) or unaffordable (through job loss, inflation), in depressions or recessions. The study of such markets usually does not involve great risk, unless the markets are illegal (e.g., illicit drug markets), the economy being studied has put people under great stress, or one's findings are really unpopular.

*{{W|Law}} in this context refers to the rules people have to follow in society, and given the nature of laws (civil and criminal), the odds that your death is related to law is usually low. Possible causes of death more-or-less directly related would include prosecution for a capital crime, persecution under legal authority (such as being killed by an officer of the law), attack by a guard, or for lack of medical treatment, while incarcerated, or death by exposure after expulsion from one's repossessed or otherwise legally confiscated home. However, when large groups of people are dispossessed, or have the protection of law removed, casualties can be quite high. For instance, the {{w|Partition of India}} in 1947 resulted in 200,000 to 2 million deaths. The laws of the {{w|Great Leap Forward}} contributed to the starvation of tens of millions of Chinese, disproportionally many of them lawyers and law professors. Perhaps most ironically, a lawyer who committed a capital crime in a country which practices capital punishment (such as the United States, China or Iran), and was executed for it would be directly killed by the thing s/he studies. In 2000, approximately 300,000 died from war and collective violence.("[https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/abstract_en.pdf WHO:World report on violence and health]")

*{{W|Criminology}} is very similar to law, but is the study of crime, meaning it's more dangerous than just "law." Criminologists may be directly involved with criminals in the course of their studies, increasing their exposure to potentially life-threatening behavior. There were 520,000 deaths from violence (excluding war, suicide, and accidental/incidental deaths resulting from criminal activity) in 2000.("[https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/abstract_en.pdf WHO:World report on violence and health]")

*{{W|Meteorology}} is the study of weather. Encountering powerful weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, floods, and thunderstorms brings distinct possibility of injury and death. Curiosity to see a storm in person, or (if working for television news) exposing yourself to the weather event in order to file a report, may expose you to lightning, wind-blown projectiles, cold, water, etc., any of which can negatively affect your survival. Less dramatic weather also kills - hot weather can lead to heat stroke and dehydration. Adverse weather events kill about 100,000 to 200,000 annually.("[http://www.supportoursharks.com/en/Education/Shark_Attacks/Biggest_Killers.htm Support our Sharks:How many sharks have been killed]")

*{{W|Chemistry}} is the study of chemicals and reactions of those chemicals. Since, under terrestrial conditions, everything is made up of chemicals (and chemists often use especially reactive or dangerous chemicals), the likelihood of a chemist's death being caused by chemistry (e.g., explosions, poisoning, chemical burns, suffocation) is not insignificant. Unintentional poisoning is identified as cause of death for about 200,000 people a year, chemical assisted suicide kills over 300,000 yearly.("[https://www.who.int/ipcs/poisons/en/ WHO:International Programme on Chemical Safety:Poisoning Prevention and Management]") Many other causes of death, such as snake bite (100,000), drug and alcohol disorders, some respiratory disorders and cancers are more or less directly caused by chemicals.("[https://ourworldindata.org/causes-of-death Our World In Data:Causes of Death]")

*{{W|Marine biology}} is the study of ocean life. Many marine creatures are venomous, many are very large. Death could result from storms, boat accidents, drowning, diving accidents, exposure to pathogenic bacteria, toxins (such as those produced by cone snails, and "red tide" dinoflagellates), allergies to shellfish, or water pollution, in addition to such perhaps more obvious (but overwhelmingly rarer) risks as shark attacks. About 360,000 people die of drowning annually.("[https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/drowning WHO Fact sheet:Drowning]") Unprovoked shark attacks kill an average of 6 people annually.("[https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/shark-attacks/yearly-worldwide-summary/ International Shark Attack File:Yearly Worldwide Shark Attack Summary]")

*{{w|Volcanology}} involves the study of {{w|volcanoes}}, {{w|lava}}, and {{w|magma}}, with obvious risks to the scientists studying them in the field. Volcanoes have killed an estimated average of 500 people per year; most deaths resulting from remote effects, such as tsunamis and climate disruption.("[https://www.foxnews.com/science/volcanoes-kill-about-540-people-a-year-scientists-say Volcanoes kill about 540 people a year, scientists say]", "[https://appliedvolc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13617-017-0067-4 Volcanic fatalities database: analysis of volcanic threat with distance and victim classification]") At least 67 scientists have been killed in volcanic eruptions, as of 2017 ("[https://cosmosmagazine.com/geoscience/volcanologists-lose-their-lives-in-pursuit-of-knowledge Volcanologists lose their lives in pursuit of knowledge]").

*{{w|Gerontology}} involves the study of aging, and of growing old in general. As everyone ages and eventually dies{{Citation needed}}, those who study gerontology are not immune to dying in old age even if they evade all the other possible causes of death - thus making it the most likely among all shown fields. A gerontologist still can die from something else first, but without the inherent risk factors of other professions such as active volcanoes or underwater diving they're more likely to survive to retirement and thus meet their death of old age.

*The title text is about {{w|Epidemiology}}: the study of health and disease conditions in populations. In the event of an epidemic, there is a strong chance that epidemiologists in the search for the causation, transmission and treatment will be exposed and become victims of the disease in their own right. However, the title text refers more broadly to the role of epidemiology in maintaining detailed statistical records of diseases and other causes of death, such that eventually any epidemiologist (whatever the cause of death) will become one of his/her own statistics.

==Transcript==

:[A line chart is shown going from left to right with two arrows on either side. On the line are ten dots spread out unevenly from close to each end. The first four dots are clustered together on the left side. Then follows 5 more dots unevenly spaced, all to the left of center. On the far right of the line, near the end, there is one dot. Beneath each dot there goes a line down to a label written beneath each line. Above the chart there is a big title and below that an explanation. Below that again, there is a small arrow pointing to the right with a label above it.]
:<big>Probability that you'll be killed by the thing you study</big>
:By field

:[Arrow pointing right, labeled:]
:More likely

:[Labels for the ten dots from left to right:]
:Mathematics (0 pixels from first field, 0.00% of overall range of fields)
:Astronomy (9px, 1.35%)
:Economics (16px, 2.40%)
:Law (22px, 3.30%)
:Criminology (77px, 11.56%)
:Meteorology (96px, 14.41%)
:Chemistry (156px, 23.42%)
:Marine Biology (166px, 24.92%)
:Volcanology (206px, 30.93%)
:Gerontology (666px, 100.00%)

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Rankings]]

2142: Dangerous Fields

2019-04-29T06:50:11Z

Ncm: /* Fields */ lawyers targeted in china

{{comic
| number = 2142
| date = April 26, 2019
| title = Dangerous Fields
| image = dangerous_fields.png
| titletext = Eventually, every epidemiologist becomes another statistic, a dedication to record-keeping which their colleagues sincerely appreciate.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an INEXORABLE PROCESS. Percentages needed to be added (like [[1895: Worrying Scientist Interviews]]). Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This is a graph of fields of study, ordered by how likely one is to die because of something that that field studies, with mathematics being the least dangerous and gerontology being the most. Gerontology is shown as much more dangerous than the other fields, so it is far on the right side of the graph. The joke is in the distinction between the danger of studying the thing, and the overall death rate from the thing. Studying ageing doesn't put you at much more risk of ageing than the general population. However, studying volcanoes is likely to put you in dangerous environments.

===Fields===
*{{W|Mathematics}} is such a pure non-physical field that the probability of it being the direct cause of death is extremely low. The study of it might cause death through workplace disputes or absent-mindedly wandering in front of traffic while pondering (as in [[356: Nerd Sniping]]).

*{{W|Astronomy}}, the study of stars and space. Astronomy is slightly more dangerous than mathematics though, since it studies physical objects instead of abstract concepts. In addition to meteor or asteroid impacts, astronomical phenomena that might cause death include solar flares, nearby supernovas, distant magnetar quakes, a solar nova (the likelihood of which will increase over the next billion-odd years), perturbations in earth's orbit, increased or decreased solar radiation, alien invasion. Given that the density of magnetars and potentially hostile alien civilizations in the potentially lethal radius is (like the radius itself) completely unknown, and not all past mass extinctions are explained, this one might be misplaced a bit. Although these are all rare events, just one could kill all living and potential future astronomers. That non-astronomers would also be affected seems little consolation.

*{{W|Economics}} is the study of markets. Markets can kill you by depriving you of goods and services you need to survive. Goods can become unavailable (e.g., cartels, embargos) or unaffordable (through job loss, inflation), in depressions or recessions. The study of such markets usually does not involve great risk, unless the markets are illegal (e.g., illicit drug markets), the economy being studied has put people under great stress, or one's findings are really unpopular.

*{{W|Law}} in this context refers to the rules people have to follow in society, and given the nature of laws (civil and criminal), the odds that your death is related to law is usually low. Possible causes of death more-or-less directly related would include prosecution for a capital crime, persecution under legal authority (such as being killed by an officer of the law), attack by a guard, or for lack of medical treatment, while incarcerated, or death by exposure after expulsion from one's repossessed or otherwise legally confiscated home. However, when large groups of people are dispossessed, or have the protection of law removed, casualties can be quite high. For instance, the {{w|Partition of India}} in 1947 resulted in 200,000 to 2 million deaths. The laws of the {{w|Great Leap Forward}} contributed to the starvation of tens of millions of Chinese, disproportionally many of them lawyers and law professors. Perhaps most ironically, a lawyer who committed a capital crime in a country which practices capital punishment (such as the United States, China or Iran), and was executed for it would be directly killed by the thing s/he studies.

*{{W|Criminology}} is very similar to law, but is the study of crime, meaning it's more dangerous than just "law." Criminologists may be directly involved with criminals in the course of their studies, increasing their exposure to potentially life-threatening behavior.

*{{W|Meteorology}} is the study of weather. Encountering powerful weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, floods, and thunderstorms brings distinct possibility of injury and death. Curiosity to see a storm in person, or (if working for television news) exposing yourself to the weather event in order to file a report, may expose you to lightning, wind-blown projectiles, cold, water, etc., any of which can negatively affect your survival. Less dramatic weather also kills - hot weather can lead to heat stroke and dehydration.

*{{W|Chemistry}} is the study of chemicals and reactions of those chemicals. Since, under terrestrial conditions, everything is made up of chemicals (and chemists often use especially reactive or dangerous chemicals), the likelihood of a chemist's death being caused by chemistry (e.g., explosions, poisoning, chemical burns, suffocation) is not insignificant.

*{{W|Marine biology}} is the study of ocean life. Many marine creatures are venomous, many are very large. Death could result from storms, boat accidents, drowning, diving accidents, exposure to pathogenic bacteria, toxins (such as those produced by cone snails, and "red tide" dinoflagellates), allergies to shellfish, or water pollution, in addition to such perhaps more obvious (but overwhelmingly rarer) risks as shark attacks.

*{{w|Volcanology}} involves the study of {{w|volcanoes}}, {{w|lava}}, and {{w|magma}}, with obvious risks to the scientists studying them in the field. At least 67 scientists have been killed in volcanic eruptions, as of 2017 ("[https://cosmosmagazine.com/geoscience/volcanologists-lose-their-lives-in-pursuit-of-knowledge Volcanologists lose their lives in pursuit of knowledge]").

*{{w|Gerontology}} involves the study of aging, and of growing old in general. As everyone ages and eventually dies{{Citation needed}}, those who study gerontology are not immune to dying in old age even if they evade all the other possible causes of death - thus making it the most likely among all shown fields. A gerontologist still can die from something else first, but without the inherent risk factors of other professions such as active volcanoes or underwater diving they're more likely to survive to retirement and thus meet their death of old age.

*The title text is about {{w|Epidemiology}}: the study of health and disease conditions in populations. In the event of an epidemic, there is a strong chance that epidemiologists in the search for the causation, transmission and treatment will be exposed and become victims of the disease in their own right. However, the title text refers more broadly to the role of epidemiology in maintaining detailed statistical records of diseases and other causes of death, such that eventually any epidemiologist (whatever the cause of death) will become one of his/her own statistics.

==Transcript==

:[A line chart is shown going from left to right with two arrows on either side. On the line are ten dots spread out unevenly from close to each end. The first four dots are clustered together on the left side. Then follows 5 more dots unevenly spaced, all to the left of center. On the far right of the line, near the end, there is one dot. Beneath each dot there goes a line down to a label written beneath each line. Above the chart there is a big title and below that an explanation. Below that again, there is a small arrow pointing to the right with a label above it.]
:<big>Probability that you'll be killed by the thing you study</big>
:By field

:[Arrow pointing right, labeled:]
:More likely

:[Labels for the ten dots from left to right:]
:Mathematics (0 pixels from first field, 0.00% of overall range of fields)
:Astronomy (9px, 1.35%)
:Economics (16px, 2.40%)
:Law (22px, 3.30%)
:Criminology (77px, 11.56%)
:Meteorology (96px, 14.41%)
:Chemistry (156px, 23.42%)
:Marine Biology (166px, 24.92%)
:Volcanology (206px, 30.93%)
:Gerontology (666px, 100.00%)

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Rankings]]

2142: Dangerous Fields

2019-04-29T06:45:19Z

Ncm: /* Explanation */ mass risk in astronomy

{{comic
| number = 2142
| date = April 26, 2019
| title = Dangerous Fields
| image = dangerous_fields.png
| titletext = Eventually, every epidemiologist becomes another statistic, a dedication to record-keeping which their colleagues sincerely appreciate.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an INEXORABLE PROCESS. Percentages needed to be added (like [[1895: Worrying Scientist Interviews]]). Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This is a graph of fields of study, ordered by how likely one is to die because of something that that field studies, with mathematics being the least dangerous and gerontology being the most. Gerontology is shown as much more dangerous than the other fields, so it is far on the right side of the graph. The joke is in the distinction between the danger of studying the thing, and the overall death rate from the thing. Studying ageing doesn't put you at much more risk of ageing than the general population. However, studying volcanoes is likely to put you in dangerous environments.

===Fields===
*{{W|Mathematics}} is such a pure non-physical field that the probability of it being the direct cause of death is extremely low. The study of it might cause death through workplace disputes or absent-mindedly wandering in front of traffic while pondering (as in [[356: Nerd Sniping]]).

*{{W|Astronomy}}, the study of stars and space. Astronomy is slightly more dangerous than mathematics though, since it studies physical objects instead of abstract concepts. In addition to meteor or asteroid impacts, astronomical phenomena that might cause death include solar flares, nearby supernovas, distant magnetar quakes, a solar nova (the likelihood of which will increase over the next billion-odd years), perturbations in earth's orbit, increased or decreased solar radiation, alien invasion. Given that the density of magnetars and potentially hostile alien civilizations in the potentially lethal radius is (like the radius itself) completely unknown, and not all past mass extinctions are explained, this one might be misplaced a bit. Although these are all rare events, just one could kill all living and potential future astronomers. That non-astronomers would also be affected seems little consolation.

*{{W|Economics}} is the study of markets. Markets can kill you by depriving you of goods and services you need to survive. Goods can become unavailable (e.g., cartels, embargos) or unaffordable (through job loss, inflation), in depressions or recessions. The study of such markets usually does not involve great risk, unless the markets are illegal (e.g., illicit drug markets), the economy being studied has put people under great stress, or one's findings are really unpopular.

*{{W|Law}} in this context refers to the rules people have to follow in society, and given the nature of laws (civil and criminal), the odds that your death is related to law is usually low. Possible causes of death more-or-less directly related would include prosecution for a capital crime, persecution under legal authority (such as being killed by an officer of the law), attack by a guard, or for lack of medical treatment, while incarcerated, or death by exposure after expulsion from one's repossessed or otherwise legally confiscated home. However, when large groups of people are dispossessed, or have the protection of law removed, casualties can be quite high. For instance, the {{w|Partition of India}} in 1947 resulted in 200,000 to 2 million deaths. The laws of the {{w|Great Leap Forward}} contributed to the starvation of tens of millions of Chinese. Perhaps most ironically, a lawyer who committed a capital crime in a country which practices capital punishment (such as the United States, China or Iran), and was executed for it would be directly killed by the thing s/he studies.

*{{W|Criminology}} is very similar to law, but is the study of crime, meaning it's more dangerous than just "law." Criminologists may be directly involved with criminals in the course of their studies, increasing their exposure to potentially life-threatening behavior.

*{{W|Meteorology}} is the study of weather. Encountering powerful weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, floods, and thunderstorms brings distinct possibility of injury and death. Curiosity to see a storm in person, or (if working for television news) exposing yourself to the weather event in order to file a report, may expose you to lightning, wind-blown projectiles, cold, water, etc., any of which can negatively affect your survival. Less dramatic weather also kills - hot weather can lead to heat stroke and dehydration.

*{{W|Chemistry}} is the study of chemicals and reactions of those chemicals. Since, under terrestrial conditions, everything is made up of chemicals (and chemists often use especially reactive or dangerous chemicals), the likelihood of a chemist's death being caused by chemistry (e.g., explosions, poisoning, chemical burns, suffocation) is not insignificant.

*{{W|Marine biology}} is the study of ocean life. Many marine creatures are venomous, many are very large. Death could result from storms, boat accidents, drowning, diving accidents, exposure to pathogenic bacteria, toxins (such as those produced by cone snails, and "red tide" dinoflagellates), allergies to shellfish, or water pollution, in addition to such perhaps more obvious (but overwhelmingly rarer) risks as shark attacks.

*{{w|Volcanology}} involves the study of {{w|volcanoes}}, {{w|lava}}, and {{w|magma}}, with obvious risks to the scientists studying them in the field. At least 67 scientists have been killed in volcanic eruptions, as of 2017 ("[https://cosmosmagazine.com/geoscience/volcanologists-lose-their-lives-in-pursuit-of-knowledge Volcanologists lose their lives in pursuit of knowledge]").

*{{w|Gerontology}} involves the study of aging, and of growing old in general. As everyone ages and eventually dies{{Citation needed}}, those who study gerontology are not immune to dying in old age even if they evade all the other possible causes of death - thus making it the most likely among all shown fields. A gerontologist still can die from something else first, but without the inherent risk factors of other professions such as active volcanoes or underwater diving they're more likely to survive to retirement and thus meet their death of old age.

*The title text is about {{w|Epidemiology}}: the study of health and disease conditions in populations. In the event of an epidemic, there is a strong chance that epidemiologists in the search for the causation, transmission and treatment will be exposed and become victims of the disease in their own right. However, the title text refers more broadly to the role of epidemiology in maintaining detailed statistical records of diseases and other causes of death, such that eventually any epidemiologist (whatever the cause of death) will become one of his/her own statistics.

==Transcript==

:[A line chart is shown going from left to right with two arrows on either side. On the line are ten dots spread out unevenly from close to each end. The first four dots are clustered together on the left side. Then follows 5 more dots unevenly spaced, all to the left of center. On the far right of the line, near the end, there is one dot. Beneath each dot there goes a line down to a label written beneath each line. Above the chart there is a big title and below that an explanation. Below that again, there is a small arrow pointing to the right with a label above it.]
:<big>Probability that you'll be killed by the thing you study</big>
:By field

:[Arrow pointing right, labeled:]
:More likely

:[Labels for the ten dots from left to right:]
:Mathematics (0 pixels from first field, 0.00% of overall range of fields)
:Astronomy (9px, 1.35%)
:Economics (16px, 2.40%)
:Law (22px, 3.30%)
:Criminology (77px, 11.56%)
:Meteorology (96px, 14.41%)
:Chemistry (156px, 23.42%)
:Marine Biology (166px, 24.92%)
:Volcanology (206px, 30.93%)
:Gerontology (666px, 100.00%)

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Rankings]]

Talk:2142: Dangerous Fields

2019-04-29T06:35:39Z

Ncm: relative risk

Many more chemists have job related deaths than gets recorded. It sometimes takes years for the effects of on the job actions to show up. For example, washing your hands in benzene was common practice in the 1960's in Chemistry departments across the US. The result decades later was bone barrow cancer.

"In most modern societies, age-related diseases are by far the most common cause of death for both gerontologists and other people."
^ Can someone change this? In most modern societies, smoking kills significantly more people than old age.

Oncology, the study of cancer, should probably be in the diagram, probably not far behind gerontology. What's the name for the study of traffic accidents? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 19:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
:I don't know, but what about cardiology (heart disease)? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.59.144|172.68.59.144]] 19:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

:Technically, noone dies by old age itself. Most people die because of infection, injury or organ failure. Those deaths are often attributed to age because with age, immune system gets worse in fighting infection, regeneration gets slower and organs get weariness issues. I would argue that the profession most likely being related to your death is medical profession in general. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

:: You could say the either Medicine, Biology, Chemistry, and Physics kill 100% of people.

Reminds me of this comic: [[1895: Worrying Scientist Interviews]]. And also [[1904: Research Risks]]. [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 23:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

There’s an important distinction between being killed ‘while’ studying something and being ‘killed by’ what you’re studying, and the current explanation has many examples of the former that do not belong here. Absentmindedly walking in front of a bus while thinking about mathematics does not constitute being killed by mathematics. A marine biologist killed by something biological in the water (such as bacteria, snails, or sharks) was killed by what he was studying, but one who was killed by drowning due to currents or by non-biological pollution was not. Someone who studies the aging process will eventually succumb to the aging process (regardless what the immediate cause of death is), unless he dies of something else first, like a doctor in his thirties catching something fatal from a geriatric patient, thereby not being killed by what he was studying. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.143.240|172.68.143.240]] 03:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
:Areed. [[User:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|Probably not Douglas Hofstadter]] ([[User talk:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|talk]]) 03:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Mathematics absolutely killed Galois. Without the distraction of Galois theory, he could have focused on how to duel effectively, or at least gotten a good night's sleep beforehand. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.23|108.162.242.23]] 09:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

This might seem like a poor reason to avoid gerontology but actually it's hard to study it for long before you end up with creeping existential dread [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.58|162.158.75.58]] 22:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

It is a fine point whether there is any difference between Mathematics, as such, and doing mathematics. So, uniquely among the topics listed, death from actually doing mathematics (such as wandering into traffic the while) should count. Mathematics itself was consuming your brain, preventing vigilance.

Astronomy: https://www.quantamagazine.org/did-supernovas-kill-off-the-monster-shark-megalodon-20190115/ Magnetars are far more terrifying than supernovas.

Isn't everything really just applied mathematics (and wasn't there an XKCD comic on that a while back)? Chemical reactions, physics, economics, etc. -- all math in motion. So, broadly speaking, shouldn't mathematics be rather far to the right, up there with the study of aging/old age?
:Applying mathematics and studying mathematics are not the same thing. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 12:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

For the record, the comic is about the probability that the thing you're studying will kill you, not that it will kill you because you're studying it. I think that's an important distinction that might be confusing readers, loosely related to a previous comment about being killed "while" you're studying something. As an example, gerontologists would not be killed by old age because their studying it, but they are likely to die from old age just because that's how many people die, even if they're no longer studying it due to retirement. The comic is more about what kills you and less about how it kills you. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 12:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The title text puts me in mind of the quotation, variously attributed to Talleyrand or to Metternich.
On hearing of the death of a Turkish ambassador, Talleyrand is supposed to have said: "I wonder what he meant by that?" More commonly, the quote is attributed to Metternich, the Austrian diplomat, upon Talleyrand's death in 1838. [https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2009/jan/01/jd-salinger Happy birthday Salinger by Xan Brooks ]

As requested by the explanation note, I measured the distances of the fields along the horizontal line of the chart. I used the unaltered original image from the page at the time of the edit. If anyone can put the data into a more pleasing form, you are welcome to do so. The measurements are +/- 1-2 pixels, due to there rarely being a pixel in the exact center of the dots marking the field placings. (Was the 666px overall measurement deliberate?) [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 01:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Risk relative to the general population does not figure in; otherwise gerontology would not be way out to the right.

2142: Dangerous Fields

2019-04-29T06:28:45Z

Ncm:

{{comic
| number = 2142
| date = April 26, 2019
| title = Dangerous Fields
| image = dangerous_fields.png
| titletext = Eventually, every epidemiologist becomes another statistic, a dedication to record-keeping which their colleagues sincerely appreciate.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an INEXORABLE PROCESS. Percentages needed to be added (like [[1895: Worrying Scientist Interviews]]). Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This is a graph of fields of study, ordered by how likely one is to die because of something that that field studies, with mathematics being the least dangerous and gerontology being the most. Gerontology is shown as much more dangerous than the other fields, so it is far on the right side of the graph. The joke is in the distinction between the danger of studying the thing, and the overall death rate from the thing. Studying ageing doesn't put you at much more risk of ageing than the general population. However, studying volcanoes is likely to put you in dangerous environments.

===Fields===
*{{W|Mathematics}} is such a pure non-physical field that the probability of it being the direct cause of death is extremely low. The study of it might cause death through workplace disputes or absent-mindedly wandering in front of traffic while pondering (as in [[356: Nerd Sniping]]).

*{{W|Astronomy}}, the study of stars and space. Astronomy is slightly more dangerous than mathematics though, since it studies physical objects instead of abstract concepts. In addition to meteor or asteroid impacts, astronomical phenomena that might cause death include solar flares, nearby supernovas, distant magnetar quakes, a solar nova (the likelihood of which will increase over the next billion-odd years), perturbations in earth's orbit, increased or decreased solar radiation, alien invasion. Given that the density of magnetars and potentially hostile alien civilizations in the potentially lethal radius is (like the radius itself) completely unknown, and not all past mass extinctions are explained, this one might be misplaced a bit. Astronomy mostly deals with extremely far-away things, so astronomers are usually not at much increased risk from the things they study compared to the general population.

*{{W|Economics}} is the study of markets. Markets can kill you by depriving you of goods and services you need to survive. Goods can become unavailable (e.g., cartels, embargos) or unaffordable (through job loss, inflation), in depressions or recessions. The study of such markets usually does not involve great risk, unless the markets are illegal (e.g., illicit drug markets), the economy being studied has put people under great stress, or one's findings are really unpopular.

*{{W|Law}} in this context refers to the rules people have to follow in society, and given the nature of laws (civil and criminal), the odds that your death is related to law is usually low. Possible causes of death more-or-less directly related would include prosecution for a capital crime, persecution under legal authority (such as being killed by an officer of the law), attack by a guard, or for lack of medical treatment, while incarcerated, or death by exposure after expulsion from one's repossessed or otherwise legally confiscated home. However, when large groups of people are dispossessed, or have the protection of law removed, casualties can be quite high. For instance, the {{w|Partition of India}} in 1947 resulted in 200,000 to 2 million deaths. The laws of the {{w|Great Leap Forward}} contributed to the starvation of tens of millions of Chinese. Perhaps most ironically, a lawyer who committed a capital crime in a country which practices capital punishment (such as the United States, China or Iran), and was executed for it would be directly killed by the thing s/he studies.

*{{W|Criminology}} is very similar to law, but is the study of crime, meaning it's more dangerous than just "law." Criminologists may be directly involved with criminals in the course of their studies, increasing their exposure to potentially life-threatening behavior.

*{{W|Meteorology}} is the study of weather. Encountering powerful weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, floods, and thunderstorms brings distinct possibility of injury and death. Curiosity to see a storm in person, or (if working for television news) exposing yourself to the weather event in order to file a report, may expose you to lightning, wind-blown projectiles, cold, water, etc., any of which can negatively affect your survival. Less dramatic weather also kills - hot weather can lead to heat stroke and dehydration.

*{{W|Chemistry}} is the study of chemicals and reactions of those chemicals. Since, under terrestrial conditions, everything is made up of chemicals (and chemists often use especially reactive or dangerous chemicals), the likelihood of a chemist's death being caused by chemistry (e.g., explosions, poisoning, chemical burns, suffocation) is not insignificant.

*{{W|Marine biology}} is the study of ocean life. Many marine creatures are venomous, many are very large. Death could result from storms, boat accidents, drowning, diving accidents, exposure to pathogenic bacteria, toxins (such as those produced by cone snails, and "red tide" dinoflagellates), allergies to shellfish, or water pollution, in addition to such perhaps more obvious (but overwhelmingly rarer) risks as shark attacks.

*{{w|Volcanology}} involves the study of {{w|volcanoes}}, {{w|lava}}, and {{w|magma}}, with obvious risks to the scientists studying them in the field. At least 67 scientists have been killed in volcanic eruptions, as of 2017 ("[https://cosmosmagazine.com/geoscience/volcanologists-lose-their-lives-in-pursuit-of-knowledge Volcanologists lose their lives in pursuit of knowledge]").

*{{w|Gerontology}} involves the study of aging, and of growing old in general. As everyone ages and eventually dies{{Citation needed}}, those who study gerontology are not immune to dying in old age even if they evade all the other possible causes of death - thus making it the most likely among all shown fields. A gerontologist still can die from something else first, but without the inherent risk factors of other professions such as active volcanoes or underwater diving they're more likely to survive to retirement and thus meet their death of old age.

*The title text is about {{w|Epidemiology}}: the study of health and disease conditions in populations. In the event of an epidemic, there is a strong chance that epidemiologists in the search for the causation, transmission and treatment will be exposed and become victims of the disease in their own right. However, the title text refers more broadly to the role of epidemiology in maintaining detailed statistical records of diseases and other causes of death, such that eventually any epidemiologist (whatever the cause of death) will become one of his/her own statistics.

==Transcript==

:[A line chart is shown going from left to right with two arrows on either side. On the line are ten dots spread out unevenly from close to each end. The first four dots are clustered together on the left side. Then follows 5 more dots unevenly spaced, all to the left of center. On the far right of the line, near the end, there is one dot. Beneath each dot there goes a line down to a label written beneath each line. Above the chart there is a big title and below that an explanation. Below that again, there is a small arrow pointing to the right with a label above it.]
:<big>Probability that you'll be killed by the thing you study</big>
:By field

:[Arrow pointing right, labeled:]
:More likely

:[Labels for the ten dots from left to right:]
:Mathematics (0 pixels from first field, 0.00% of overall range of fields)
:Astronomy (9px, 1.35%)
:Economics (16px, 2.40%)
:Law (22px, 3.30%)
:Criminology (77px, 11.56%)
:Meteorology (96px, 14.41%)
:Chemistry (156px, 23.42%)
:Marine Biology (166px, 24.92%)
:Volcanology (206px, 30.93%)
:Gerontology (666px, 100.00%)

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Rankings]]

Talk:2142: Dangerous Fields

2019-04-28T05:37:54Z

Ncm: Fatal mathematics. Also, extinctions.

2142: Dangerous Fields

2019-04-28T01:36:47Z

Ncm: Delete irrelevance: death by study is not death by the thing studied.

{{comic
| number = 2142
| date = April 26, 2019
| title = Dangerous Fields
| image = dangerous_fields.png
| titletext = Eventually, every epidemiologist becomes another statistic, a dedication to record-keeping which their colleagues sincerely appreciate.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an INEXORABLE PROCESS. Percentages needed to be added (like [[1895: Worrying Scientist Interviews]]). Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This is a chart of "fields of study by danger", with mathematics being the least dangerous and gerontology being the most. Gerontology is shown as multiple times more dangerous than the other fields, so it is far on the right side of the graph. Generally speaking, the "study of ageing" does not seem likely to kill you, but approaching it philosophically, ageing is a cause of death.

This comic was posted the day after {{w|Joe Biden}} entered the race for the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, which is shaping up to feature the [https://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/national-today-newsletter-american-politics-scarecrow-1.5107181 oldest set of candidates] in history.

===Fields===
*{{W|Mathematics}} is such a pure non-physical field that the probability of it being the direct cause of death is extremely low, barring workplace disputes or absent-mindedly wandering in front of traffic while pondering (as in xkcd [[356: Nerd Sniping]]).

*{{W|Astronomy}} mostly deals with extremely far-away things, so assuming there isn't a meteor impact, astronomy is probably not going to kill you. Astronomy is slightly more dangerous than mathematics though, since it studies physical objects instead of abstract concepts. In addition to meteor or asteroid impacts, astronomical phenomena that might cause death include nearby supernovas, distant magnetar quakes, a solar flare or solar nova (the likelihood of which will increase over the next billion-odd years), perturbations in earth's orbit, increased or decreased solar radiation, alien invasion, etc. Given that the density of magnetars and potentially hostile alien civilizations in the potentially lethal radius is (like the radius itself) completely unknown, and not all past mass extinctions are explained, this one might be misplaced a bit. The lethal stroke may be unlikely, in absolute terms, but most cut quite a broad swath.

*{{W|Economics}} is the study of markets, which through recessions and scarcity can kill you in any way that capitalism or other economic systems can affect the availability of goods and services you need to survive.

*{{W|Law}} in this context refers to the rules people have to follow in society, and given the nature of laws (civil and criminal), the odds that your death is related to law is low. Possible causes of death more-or-less directly related to the study of law would include attacks by someone you are prosecuting or defending, prosecution for a capital crime, persecution under legal authority (such as being shot or strangled by an officer of the law), attack by a guard or fellow prisoner, or for lack of medical treatment, while incarcerated, or death by exposure after expulsion from one's repossessed or otherwise legally confiscated home. Perhaps most ironically, a lawyer who committed a capital crime and was executed for it would be directly killed by the thing s/he studies.

*{{W|Criminology}} is very similar to law, but is the study of crime, meaning it's more dangerous than just "law." Criminologists may be directly involved with criminals in the course of their studies, increasing their exposure to potentially life-threatening behavior.

*{{W|Meteorology}} is the study of weather, and encountering powerful weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and thunderstorms brings distinct possibility of injury and death. Curiosity to see a storm in person, or (if working for television news) exposing yourself to the weather event in order to file a report, may expose you to lightning, wind-blown projectiles, cold, etc. any of which can negatively affect your survival.

*{{W|Chemistry}} is the study of chemicals and reactions of those chemicals. Since everything in existence is made up of chemicals (and chemists often use especially reactive or dangerous chemicals), the likelihood of a chemist's death being caused by chemistry (e.g., explosions, poisoning, chemical burns, suffocation...) is not insignificant.

*{{W|Marine Biology}} is the study of marine life. Many marine creatures are venomous, many are very large, many are very hungry. Death could result from exposure to pathogenic bacteria, toxins (such as those produced by cone snails, and "red tide" dinoflagellates), allergies to shellfish, drowning (e.g. in strong ocean currents), scuba accidents, or water pollution, in addition to such perhaps more obvious (but overwhelmingly rarer) risks as shark attacks.

*{{w|Volcanology}} involves the study of {{w|volcanoes}}, {{w|lava}}, and {{w|magma}}, with obvious risks to the scientists studying them in the field. At least 67 scientists have been killed in volcanic eruptions, as of 2017 ("[https://cosmosmagazine.com/geoscience/volcanologists-lose-their-lives-in-pursuit-of-knowledge Volcanologists lose their lives in pursuit of knowledge]").

*{{w|Gerontology}} involves the study of aging, and of growing old in general. As everyone ages and eventually dies, those who study gerontology are not immune to dying in old age even if they evade all the other possible causes of death - thus making it the most likely among all shown fields. A gerontologist still can die from something else first, but without the inherent risk factors of other professions such as active volcanoes or underwater diving they're more likely to survive to retirement and thus meet their death of old age.

The title text is about {{w|Epidemiology}}: the study of health and disease conditions in populations. In the event of an epidemic, there is a strong chance that epidemiologists in the search for the causation, transmission and treatment will be exposed and become victims of the disease in their own right. However, the title text refers more broadly to the role of epidemiology in maintaining detailed statistical records of diseases and other causes of death, such that eventually any epidemiologist (whatever the cause of death) will become one of his/her own statistics.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:[A line chart is shown going from left to right with two arrows on either side. On the line are ten dots spread out unevenly from close to each end. The first four dots are clustered together on the left side. Then follows 5 more dots unevenly spaced, all to the left of center. On the far right of the line, near the end, there is one dot. Beneath each dot there goes a line down to a label written beneath each line. Above the chart there is a big title and below that an explanation. Below that again, there is a small arrow pointing to the right with a label above it.]
:<big>Probability that you'll be killed by the thing you study</big>
:By field

:[Arrow label:]
:More likely

:[Labels for the ten dots from left to right:]
:Mathematics
:Astronomy
:Economics
:Law
:Criminology
:Meteorology
:Chemistry
:Marine Biology
:Volcanology
:Gerontology

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Rankings]]

2142: Dangerous Fields

2019-04-27T05:07:33Z

Ncm: /* Fields */ law

2142: Dangerous Fields

2019-04-27T04:57:42Z

Ncm: /* Fields */

2142: Dangerous Fields

2019-04-27T01:46:28Z

Ncm: astronomy again.

2142: Dangerous Fields

2019-04-27T01:37:51Z

Ncm: flesh out astronomical, legal, mathematical risks